The Schaubühne Moves to the Lehniner Platz

Soon after the establishment of Peter Stein and his company at the Halleschen Ufer, the conservative political parties (among others the CDU) protested their political engagement and their involvement with the sixties protest movement – in short, their left-wing image. By then it was already too late: the Schaubühne had made such a strong name that Berlin wouldn’t dismiss them – on the contrary, the authorities would do anything to keep the company (that was so important for Berlin’s status as a theatre metropole) within the city. Their importance as a theatre company is described by Iden (1984) who considers them one of Europe’s most significant companies ever since the 1970’s and points out that every new Schaubühne performance dominated the debate and discussion in the field: ‘Sie war (…) rasch zu einer ersten europäischen Bühne geworden, vorbildlich in ihrer Organisation und ihrer Ergebnissen: ein Jahrzehnt lang beherrschten die neuesten Inszenierungen der Schaubühne jede Theaterdiskussion.’ (Iden, 1984, 103).

Towards the middle of the 1970’s it became clear that the building at the Halleschen Ufer was so worn it wouldn’t do anymore and a new location had to be found. At the very time that the Schaubühne was looking for a new building, the city of Berlin was confronted with the problem of the preservation of the old and damaged Mendelsohn building at the upper Kurfürstendamm, at the Lehniner Platz. The lot was for sale and the building had no status to protect it, so any buyer could have it demolished – and most probably would because preservation would include costly restoration of the building. It was the joung architect Jürgen Sawade who pointed out to both the city counsel and the Schaubühne the possible use as a new theatre. After both parties accepted the deal, Sawade renovated the exterior (by then declared a monument) and rebuild the interior according to the demands of the Schaubühne into a multifunctional, flexible and multiple-use theatre.

Before the Schaubühne even set foot in the new theatre, they had to endure critique and worries about their integrity. As Iden (1984) recalls, to many Schaubühne fans it seemed that the good times were over. The main worries concerned the obvious transition towards the ‘establishment’ now that the company moved from its fringe location (both literally and symbolically) in Kreuzberg to the commercial centre of West Berlin. Some critics assumed the new prestigious location would spoil the attitude of the Schaubühne towards contemporary society – now they would become a part of that society. It was probably not only the location but also the amount of money spent on the rebuilding of Mendelsohn’s Universum (about 100 000 000 Mark) that fuelled these worries. Not unimaginable, some feared the Schaubühne would be pressed into increasing the yearly amount of their productions at the expense of quality. Apparently, some also feared the Schaubühne would loose its creativity and novelty that was partly forced upon them by the very ramshackle conditions of the building at the Halleschen Ufer.

It is debatable whether these concerns and speculations were justified. In general, the Schaubühne performances after 1980 are deemed much more conservative (or maybe classical would be a more appropriate term; in any case less political and less radical). However, on the other hand, the new building impressed almost everyone and it turned out that it was an incredible varied instrument to be used – a true source of possibilities.

In any case, the 1981 movement was a big change and the Schaubühne was very aware of this. Maybe that is the reason they did not produce an inaugural performance but simply moved Stein’s Orestie, produced at the Halleschen Ufer in 1980, to the Lehniner Platz.

Undoubtedly, the Schaubühne am Lehiner Platz changed over the years. Then again, the Schaubühne had been one of Germanies leading companies for ten years now and evolution is inevitable. The company changed as people changed. Stein (who is ever critical about his own work) rejected some of his earliest performances, most strongly the Tasso and Peer Gynt; for example in an interview with Théâtre en Europe (1984, 26): ‘ Je n’accepterai jamais plus qu’un production comme Peer Gynt voie le jour’: I will notk accept that a performance like Peer Gynt will ever see the light of day again.

So one could say the company lost interest in the performance as a means to express radical politics, but at the same time one should realise that the Schaubühne performances have always put the artistic qualities above the political level. However, they lost the support of their former scene in Kreuzberg; Bruno Ganz, interviewed by Zonneveld (1993), explained that the Kreuzbergers hated them, because the Schaubühne spent so much money (their budget in 1980 was 20,000,000 Mark, it had been 1,800,000 in 1970) and didn’t convey any political messages anymore. There were also attacks on the artistic qualities. Most critics stated that the external perfection of the productions only concealed emptiness. There was only form and no content. It certainly wasn’t easy to meet the high expectations of everybody: the city counsel, the audience and the critics. In a way, the company was required to continue on its old basis but at the same time to innovate. Therefore, it was bound to lose at least part of its traditional support.

Nevertheless, some of the Schaubühne’s most celebrated performances were produced at the Lehniner Platz:Grüber’s Hamlet, for example, a performance that made full use of the possibilities of the new theatre. Another successful production was Stein’s Drei Schwestern that has become a classic. Still, all old Schaubühne characteristics are visible: detailed research, emphasis on the text, and the words of the drama. Van den Dries (1984, 15) calls the Schaubühne performances ‘a conversation with the classics’. He also perceives a development towards conventionalism from 1980 onwards but links it to the general development of the political stage. It can be called conventionalism, or academicism (as Stein called it himself), but the very basis of the performance became an increasing interest in the text itself. Stein expressed this in an interview (in Théâtre en Europe 1984) when referring to his Drei Schwestern: ‘Bien sûr, si on n’arrive pas à saisir précisément l’ élément tchekhovien, il vous vient aussitôt, par pure détresse, toutes sortes de trouvailles pour y remédier’  : If you not discover the Chekhovian element, you will have no choice but to resort to all kind of tricks to fill it up.

The company survived the attacks but not entirely. They remained a leading company in Europe and were frequently invited to theatre festivals but internally it didn’t always go so well. Some members of the ensemble attacked each other in the press. Some left for various reasons. Stein himself left the Schaubühne in 1984 to stage plays and opera’s elsewhere. Luc Bondy replaced him until 1992 when Andrea Breth took over. It proved hard to grow and to compete with the East German theatre after reunion of Germany. There were calls for a reorganisation that would mean the end of the collective structure and the end of the ensemble, and Breth withdrew in 1999. This was the year of a complete restart. The entire company was dismissed and forty new performers and dancers engaged. Four very young artistic directors were appointed; they were young but had already established their talent.

Thomas Ostermeier and Jens Hilje are responsible for the theatrical production, Sacha Waltz for dance and choreography. They increased the number of annual production from around five to ten. They want to present a complete range of performative forms, both theatre and dance, because both are equal and complement the other aesthetically. The Schaubühne has to become a leading company again, by presenting contemporary plays and dances. An important component of the Schaubühne is the promotion of new German drama. The company invites contemporary dramatists to send in their work. Furthermore, it has a strong European involvement that promotes international co-operation. All this shows that in describing the history of the Schaubühne am Lehniner Platz, one must note that the Schaubühne is a living company rather than a relic from the past. They have played an important role in the European theatre so far, and with these young artistic leaders, they are ready to face the future. What Iden remarked about the company more than ten years ago, in 1979 shortly before they would move from the Halleschen Ufer to the Lehniner Platz, still goes: ‘Die Schaubühne, so sehr sie Theatergeschichte schon gemacht hat, ist selber noch keineswegs Geschichte.’ : Even if the Schaubühne made history, it has not yet become history (Iden, 1979, 15).